i studied poly sci and constitutional law while in college. Ill leave it at that. If really interested in my employment, you can dig through my older posts. I only ask what you do for a living/studied to see if you have any background knowledge in the constitution and property rights. Most people that put groups over individuals dont.
I don't put groups over individuals. You just don't understand my position.
Any why're you gonna "leave it at that," unless you have some reason to not answer your own question? Anyone can "study" poli sci and the constitution and property rights. You still don't have any reason to believe that I have no background knowledge in these things and I have no real reason to believe that you do. I'm not going to dig through your fucking posts. Why didn't you dig through my posts if you wanted to know about my education and employement? :roll:
but you do, your putting the rights of a group - women in this case - over private property rights for every individual.
as far as the job, plain and simple, i shouldnt be having this conversation and I could catch hell if my employer knew I was airing my biases. Lets just say I spend everyday of the winter in my state's capitol building. i see special interests group trample all over basic constitutional standards everyday - and support of said trampling by members of both parties. Some days, I come home from work literally sick to my stomach. THen I hop online, read most of these posts, and throw up. What's most frustrating is I know most of you are very intelligent people but you cherry pick which parts of the good book you think we ought to abide by. Its not consistent and it results in an encroachment on all of OUR freedoms.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
i studied poly sci and constitutional law while in college. Ill leave it at that. If really interested in my employment, you can dig through my older posts. I only ask what you do for a living/studied to see if you have any background knowledge in the constitution and property rights. Most people that put groups over individuals dont.
I don't put groups over individuals. You just don't understand my position.
Any why're you gonna "leave it at that," unless you have some reason to not answer your own question? Anyone can "study" poli sci and the constitution and property rights. You still don't have any reason to believe that I have no background knowledge in these things and I have no real reason to believe that you do. I'm not going to dig through your fucking posts. Why didn't you dig through my posts if you wanted to know about my education and employement? :roll:
but you do, your putting the rights of a group - women in this case - over private property rights for every individual.
as far as the job, plain and simple, i shouldnt be having this conversation and I could catch hell if my employer knew I was airing my biases. Lets just say I spend everyday of the winter in my state's capitol building. i see special interests group trample all over basic constitutional standards everyday - and support of said trampling by members of both parties. Some days, I come home from work literally sick to my stomach. THen I hop online, read most of these posts, and throw up. What's most frustrating is I know most of you are very intelligent people but you cherry pick which parts of the good book you think we ought to abide by. Its not consistent and it results in an encroachment on all of OUR freedoms.
so in short you say freedom trumps all?
so what is it you do in your capital building? surely you can't be an elected official when earlier in this thread you bounced on me for calling you a conservative, when last i checked, conservatives and libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum on a lot of issues...
my problem with the perspective from which you are posting is the inherent over the top selfishness of it all... and that can not work in a society....not to mention the superiority complex...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
so what is it you do in your capital building? surely you can't be an elected official when earlier in this thread you bounced on me for calling you a conservative, when last i checked, conservatives and libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum on a lot of issues...
my problem with the perspective from which you are posting is the inherent over the top selfishness of it all... and that can not work in a society....not to mention the superiority complex...
im always blown away when people say freedom is selfish
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
so what is it you do in your capital building? surely you can't be an elected official when earlier in this thread you bounced on me for calling you a conservative, when last i checked, conservatives and libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum on a lot of issues...
my problem with the perspective from which you are posting is the inherent over the top selfishness of it all... and that can not work in a society....not to mention the superiority complex...
im always blown away when people say freedom is selfish
and likewise i am astounded when people drone on about "freedom". more specifically having it taken away....
some of you sound like the five year old who is mad at their mom for not letting them go play in traffic. sure they are technically "free" and allowed to do so... but some things are just stupid ideas that invite bad things to happen. as i said in a post earlier in this thread.
the same can be said for those that think an unregulated market is the cure to our problems. in theory yes, but in practice it is a dumb idea because of the selfish and predatory nature of capitalism.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
so what is it you do in your capital building? surely you can't be an elected official when earlier in this thread you bounced on me for calling you a conservative, when last i checked, conservatives and libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum on a lot of issues...
my problem with the perspective from which you are posting is the inherent over the top selfishness of it all... and that can not work in a society....not to mention the superiority complex...
im always blown away when people say freedom is selfish
You can keep defining freedom by your own terms all you want, but it's not freedom you are standing for. Your use of the word "freedom" doesn't change reality. The reality is that individual freedoms are always in conflict and justice results by balancing them against each other - but all you want to do is pick a side, say that side should have rights over the other side, and convince yourself you're right by repeatedly slapping the word "freedom" on it with no deeper analysis than cliche quotes, email forwards, and delusions of yor own grandeur.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
Thought id share this story.
(Ill respond to above posts after work)
Funny, up here in Canada we have government health care and a strong social safety net, yet people still work hard. I believe this is the same in socialist countries.
A more apt analogy would be: Nobody would fail but those who do well would still receive a higher grade than those who do not.
Hmm..
its a good theory.
Actually, it's flat out wrong given what happens in a country with a soft socialism and a large social safety net. There are still rich guys that want to get ahead, guys that work hard and don't get ahead, and people who for whatever reason can't get ahead. Luckily, those that can't get ahead are taken care of.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
Actually, it's flat out wrong given what happens in a country with a soft socialism and a large social safety net. There are still rich guys that want to get ahead, guys that work hard and don't get ahead, and people who for whatever reason can't get ahead. Luckily, those that can't get ahead are taken care of.
Exactly. And that's not to mention that these countries are much more likely to have considerably better health outcomes than we are. The U.S. has very poor health outcomes compared to other wealthy nations (including having the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the developed world). There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Department of Health & Human Services wanting to improve health care access so as to improve public health. Just because it's a goal that competes with some individual business owners' goals of imposing their personal religious beliefs on other people (who often don't actually have a choice), doesn't mean that it's anti-freedom. The policy has already made concessions for religious organizations, but they did it in a way that balanced the interests of business owners with the interests of employees. (How un-American!! )
In response to new regulations from the Obama Administration that would mandate Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to provide services against Church teachings, Roman Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh says the administration is telling American Catholics: “To Hell with you.”
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!
im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)
But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.
i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!
im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)
But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.
i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.
Then why is Canada doing alright?
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!
im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)
But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.
i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.
I'm just baffled as to why someone who's supposedly so enlightened has nothing but personal attacks to support his opinion.
bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!
im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)
But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.
i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.
Then why is Canada doing alright?
hmmm, why is Canada doing alright? in short, because they cut spending. Not cutting projected increases in spending, but making actual cuts. Entitlements WERE cut in Canada....something you all would be flippin a lid over if it happened here.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
I'm just baffled as to why someone who's supposedly so enlightened has nothing but personal attacks to support his opinion.
what personal attack?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
Fact: Anytime a nations citizens are taxed beyond 25percent of GDP, that country has withered and decayed away.
Fact: America is far and above that number right now.
Fact: The Constitution exists to restrict government, not individuals.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
no i define freedom by universally set terms, as follows:
Liberty is
1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4.
freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint
it seems as though you are the one with beliefs based on a moving definition
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
hmmm, why is Canada doing alright? in short, because they cut spending. Not cutting projected increases in spending, but making actual cuts. Entitlements WERE cut in Canada....something you all would be flippin a lid over if it happened here.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Great post. I guess the point I'm making is IF done responsibly, countries can provide a large social safety net along with financial sanity.
Right now, the USA has neither.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
hmmm, why is Canada doing alright? in short, because they cut spending. Not cutting projected increases in spending, but making actual cuts. Entitlements WERE cut in Canada....something you all would be flippin a lid over if it happened here.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Great post. I guess the point I'm making is IF done responsibly, countries can provide a large social safety net along with financial sanity.
Right now, the USA has neither.
i agree, but it doesnt need to involve mandating private companies provide specified services........ the topic of this thread.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!
im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)
But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.
i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.
I'm just baffled as to why someone who's supposedly so enlightened has nothing but personal attacks to support his opinion.
i agree. i take issue with pretty much his entire post, but it is pointless to try to debunk his prejudices of the left.
bleeding hearts, socialism, use of emotion rather than facts to defend a position, not having real world experience, these are all standard responses from "conservatives" who claim to have more experience and be superior to and more intelligent than those of us on the left. i have been hearing that same shit on here from the conservative minority since before the onset of the iraq war. it is just pure, condescending bullshit. nothing more.
most of them claim to have studied the constitution and claim to know the intentions of the founding fathers. that is an outright bullshit claim as well. how can anyone know the actual intent of those that lived over 220 years ago? yes there are letters and books, but you can not apply everything written in that timeframe to today's world. besides, there are so many different ways that those things could be interpreted that nobody can know all of it with any degree of certainty...
so waveryder, are you saying that the liberals on here have no brain?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!
im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)
But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.
i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.
I'm just baffled as to why someone who's supposedly so enlightened has nothing but personal attacks to support his opinion.
i agree. i take issue with pretty much his entire post, but it is pointless to try to debunk his prejudices of the left.
bleeding hearts, socialism, use of emotion rather than facts to defend a position, not having real world experience, these are all standard responses from "conservatives" who claim to have more experience and be superior to and more intelligent than those of us on the left. i have been hearing that same shit on here from the conservative minority since before the onset of the iraq war. it is just pure, condescending bullshit. nothing more.
most of them claim to have studied the constitution and claim to know the intentions of the founding fathers. that is an outright bullshit claim as well. how can anyone know the actual intent of those that lived over 220 years ago? yes there are letters and books, but you can not apply everything written in that timeframe to today's world. besides, there are so many different ways that those things could be interpreted that nobody can know all of it with any degree of certainty...
so waveryder, are you saying that the liberals on here have no brain?
I love the part about reading the constitution and "studying" the founder's intent. What a joke. It's like those people who cling to a book written 2,000 years ago by a bunch of men espousing the "word of God."
it depends how old you are I suppose. I didnt make that up, its a commonly used figure of speech.
and WHYGOHOME just admitted having no regard for the constitution. like it or not, that is the doctrine that is suppose to give our country some sort of direction. How can you disrespect something intended to protect YOUR rights as a human being?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
it depends how old you are I suppose. I didnt make that up, its a commonly used figure of speech.
and WHYGOHOME just admitted having no regard for the constitution. like it or not, that is the doctrine that is suppose to give our country some sort of direction. How can you disrespect something intended to protect YOUR rights as a human being?
and what is it about the Constitution and the bill of rights that is so outdated?
the right to due process
free speech
the right to vote
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights
the right to bear arms
protection from unlawful search and seizure
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial
the right to a speedy and fair trial
the right to state provided attorney
protection from cruel and unusual punishment
What is it about these principles that is so outdated? Please fill me in. Please
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
and what is it about the Constitution and the bill of rights that is so outdated?
the right to due process
free speech
the right to vote
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights
the right to bear arms
protection from unlawful search and seizure
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial
the right to a speedy and fair trial
the right to state provided attorney
protection from cruel and unusual punishment
What is it about these principles that is so outdated? Please fill me in. Please
let's see...here is what we have today...the constitution completely being abused and distorted...
the right to due process unless you are hispanic, black, or of middle eastern descent, in which case the odds are stacked against you. just look at the demographics in our nation's prisons..and look at all of the gitmo detainees who were never charged with anything...just held for years with no charges, no trials, and no hearing in front of a military tribunal....
free speech to a certain extent. hate speech from the tea party and those on the right seems to be acceptable, and it is possible to run an entire political campaign paid for by superpacs who base the entire campaign on making up shit and attacking the other guy and not having to prove the accusations, so in that regard free speech is being abused. and do not get me started on citizen's united where corporations are people and money is speech
the right to vote unless you live in the south where mandatory picture ids are being required to vote and as such people are being disenfrancised
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president funnily enough congress is the most dysfunctional it has ever been. it is so divided. congress would rather let the economy collapse rather than see obama succeed at anything. some people call that good policy, when in actuality it is nothing more than being a dick.
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights people have the right to acquire property. when this was written PEOPLE were considered property...
the right to bear arms this is outdated. the intent of the founding fathers with this was to allow people to protect themselves from the brits, such as when british soldiers were quarterd in american homes, which is completely irrelevent in today's reality..
protection from unlawful search and seizure LOL patriot act anyone? there is no equal protection under the law and you can be unreasonably searched for anything at all these days.
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial coerced confessions anyone? this happens all the time. especially in cases of people who are in gitmo or were at other black site prisons...
the right to a speedy and fair trial people do get trials. most times they are not "speedy" (ie gitmo detainees) and most times, but not all times, they are fair.
the right to state provided attorney do people really want a public defender these days? if you want to get off or stay out of a long jail sentence you have to pay someone to get you off...
protection from cruel and unusual punishment death penalty is still legal, and we are still torturing people...
and that was just from the top of my head. if i really wanted to i could go through and find more examples. it does appear that this constitution has been shat upon. so how do ya suppose we clean up the mess??
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
it depends how old you are I suppose. I didnt make that up, its a commonly used figure of speech.
and WHYGOHOME just admitted having no regard for the constitution. like it or not, that is the doctrine that is suppose to give our country some sort of direction. How can you disrespect something intended to protect YOUR rights as a human being?
He expressed neither disregard nor disrespect for the Constitution. What he expressed disregard & disrespect for are the people who think they have some kind of inside scoop on how the founding fathers would apply it to present times.
Regardless, having just won Ed solo tickets through both 10C and the radio today, I'm in way too good a mood to continue with this discussion.
and what is it about the Constitution and the bill of rights that is so outdated?
the right to due process
free speech
the right to vote
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights
the right to bear arms
protection from unlawful search and seizure
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial
the right to a speedy and fair trial
the right to state provided attorney
protection from cruel and unusual punishment
What is it about these principles that is so outdated? Please fill me in. Please
let's see...here is what we have today...the constitution completely being abused and distorted...
the right to due process unless you are hispanic, black, or of middle eastern descent, in which case the odds are stacked against you. just look at the demographics in our nation's prisons..and look at all of the gitmo detainees who were never charged with anything...just held for years with no charges, no trials, and no hearing in front of a military tribunal....
free speech to a certain extent. hate speech from the tea party and those on the right seems to be acceptable, and it is possible to run an entire political campaign paid for by superpacs who base the entire campaign on making up shit and attacking the other guy and not having to prove the accusations, so in that regard free speech is being abused. and do not get me started on citizen's united where corporations are people and money is speech
the right to vote unless you live in the south where mandatory picture ids are being required to vote and as such people are being disenfrancised
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president funnily enough congress is the most dysfunctional it has ever been. it is so divided. congress would rather let the economy collapse rather than see obama succeed at anything. some people call that good policy, when in actuality it is nothing more than being a dick.
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights people have the right to acquire property. when this was written PEOPLE were considered property...
the right to bear arms this is outdated. the intent of the founding fathers with this was to allow people to protect themselves from the brits, such as when british soldiers were quarterd in american homes, which is completely irrelevent in today's reality..
protection from unlawful search and seizure LOL patriot act anyone? there is no equal protection under the law and you can be unreasonably searched for anything at all these days.
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial coerced confessions anyone? this happens all the time. especially in cases of people who are in gitmo or were at other black site prisons...
the right to a speedy and fair trial people do get trials. most times they are not "speedy" (ie gitmo detainees) and most times, but not all times, they are fair.
the right to state provided attorney do people really want a public defender these days? if you want to get off or stay out of a long jail sentence you have to pay someone to get you off...
protection from cruel and unusual punishment death penalty is still legal, and we are still torturing people...
and that was just from the top of my head. if i really wanted to i could go through and find more examples. it does appear that this constitution has been shat upon. so how do ya suppose we clean up the mess??
im glad you realize just how badly the Constitution is being trampled on.... see where my frustration comes from?
my suggestion is to start strictly adhereing to it. we've allowed our elected officials to compromise its principles for too long. The original topic of this thread is another example. So it seems we agree?
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
and what is it about the Constitution and the bill of rights that is so outdated?
the right to due process
free speech
the right to vote
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights
the right to bear arms
protection from unlawful search and seizure
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial
the right to a speedy and fair trial
the right to state provided attorney
protection from cruel and unusual punishment
What is it about these principles that is so outdated? Please fill me in. Please
let's see...here is what we have today...the constitution completely being abused and distorted...
the right to due process unless you are hispanic, black, or of middle eastern descent, in which case the odds are stacked against you. just look at the demographics in our nation's prisons..and look at all of the gitmo detainees who were never charged with anything...just held for years with no charges, no trials, and no hearing in front of a military tribunal....
free speech to a certain extent. hate speech from the tea party and those on the right seems to be acceptable, and it is possible to run an entire political campaign paid for by superpacs who base the entire campaign on making up shit and attacking the other guy and not having to prove the accusations, so in that regard free speech is being abused. and do not get me started on citizen's united where corporations are people and money is speech
the right to vote unless you live in the south where mandatory picture ids are being required to vote and as such people are being disenfrancised
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president funnily enough congress is the most dysfunctional it has ever been. it is so divided. congress would rather let the economy collapse rather than see obama succeed at anything. some people call that good policy, when in actuality it is nothing more than being a dick.
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights people have the right to acquire property. when this was written PEOPLE were considered property...
the right to bear arms this is outdated. the intent of the founding fathers with this was to allow people to protect themselves from the brits, such as when british soldiers were quarterd in american homes, which is completely irrelevent in today's reality..
protection from unlawful search and seizure LOL patriot act anyone? there is no equal protection under the law and you can be unreasonably searched for anything at all these days.
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial coerced confessions anyone? this happens all the time. especially in cases of people who are in gitmo or were at other black site prisons...
the right to a speedy and fair trial people do get trials. most times they are not "speedy" (ie gitmo detainees) and most times, but not all times, they are fair.
the right to state provided attorney do people really want a public defender these days? if you want to get off or stay out of a long jail sentence you have to pay someone to get you off...
protection from cruel and unusual punishment death penalty is still legal, and we are still torturing people...
and that was just from the top of my head. if i really wanted to i could go through and find more examples. it does appear that this constitution has been shat upon. so how do ya suppose we clean up the mess??
you missed one
The treasury charged with regulating currency: Since 1911 or 1913 (cant remember right off hand) our currency has been regulated by a central bank - THE FED - not the government. Just another breach of the Constitution.
RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 2
im glad you realize just how badly the Constitution is being trampled on.... see where my frustration comes from?
my suggestion is to start strictly adhereing to it. we've allowed our elected officials to compromise its principles for too long. The original topic of this thread is another example. So it seems we agree?
yes i agree with some of what you have said and i agree that it has been trampled upon. but the thing that people need to understand is that this all did not suddenly occur in january 2009 and it can not be fixed with the wave of a magic wand. do you know what it takes to ammend the constitution? do you know how difficult it is to change or alter an ammendment? in this climate it would take near universal approval between the house, senate, and state governments, and at this time there is no way any of them will agree to anything. we are screwed in this current climate.
the problem is everyone has accumulated more power since the constitution was ratified. the president has gained power given to gwb after 9/11. obama mentioned he was going to relinquish some of that power and he hasn't. nobody is going to give away power and weaken their position in government. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
and with the electorate the way it is, we have people still believing obama was born in kenya, so how does anyone think that this electorate if going to educate themselves on what the founders intended and what we have now and how to go about repairing it? unless glee becomes a civics lesson program and unless american idol would be for the presidency then this population will never have the attention span to grasp the things that you and ron paul are saying.
i don't know how we go about adhering to it now when it has become toilet paper for those in our government going back over 100 years. the ants are out of the anthill, and trying to fix things is like picking up all of the ants and putting them back in the anthill.
but as far as the thread topic, i am not buying the idea that an employer's freedom to decide what health care is provided is being trampled upon. to me, if you are going to provide something like health insurance, why half ass it? either they are in or they are out. we can't have employers sticking their toe in the water and pulling back. you are either in or you are out. and the other question is whose freedom is more important, the employer or the employee??
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
The treasury charged with regulating currency: Since 1911 or 1913 (cant remember right off hand) our currency has been regulated by a central bank - THE FED - not the government. Just another breach of the Constitution.
yeah i missed one. i was going to look that up and add to it last night but i got distracted and forgot about it.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
but you do, your putting the rights of a group - women in this case - over private property rights for every individual.
as far as the job, plain and simple, i shouldnt be having this conversation and I could catch hell if my employer knew I was airing my biases. Lets just say I spend everyday of the winter in my state's capitol building. i see special interests group trample all over basic constitutional standards everyday - and support of said trampling by members of both parties. Some days, I come home from work literally sick to my stomach. THen I hop online, read most of these posts, and throw up. What's most frustrating is I know most of you are very intelligent people but you cherry pick which parts of the good book you think we ought to abide by. Its not consistent and it results in an encroachment on all of OUR freedoms.
so what is it you do in your capital building? surely you can't be an elected official when earlier in this thread you bounced on me for calling you a conservative, when last i checked, conservatives and libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum on a lot of issues...
my problem with the perspective from which you are posting is the inherent over the top selfishness of it all... and that can not work in a society....not to mention the superiority complex...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
im always blown away when people say freedom is selfish
some of you sound like the five year old who is mad at their mom for not letting them go play in traffic. sure they are technically "free" and allowed to do so... but some things are just stupid ideas that invite bad things to happen. as i said in a post earlier in this thread.
the same can be said for those that think an unregulated market is the cure to our problems. in theory yes, but in practice it is a dumb idea because of the selfish and predatory nature of capitalism.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Exactly.
You can keep defining freedom by your own terms all you want, but it's not freedom you are standing for. Your use of the word "freedom" doesn't change reality. The reality is that individual freedoms are always in conflict and justice results by balancing them against each other - but all you want to do is pick a side, say that side should have rights over the other side, and convince yourself you're right by repeatedly slapping the word "freedom" on it with no deeper analysis than cliche quotes, email forwards, and delusions of yor own grandeur.
Exactly. And that's not to mention that these countries are much more likely to have considerably better health outcomes than we are. The U.S. has very poor health outcomes compared to other wealthy nations (including having the highest unintended pregnancy rate in the developed world). There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Department of Health & Human Services wanting to improve health care access so as to improve public health. Just because it's a goal that competes with some individual business owners' goals of imposing their personal religious beliefs on other people (who often don't actually have a choice), doesn't mean that it's anti-freedom. The policy has already made concessions for religious organizations, but they did it in a way that balanced the interests of business owners with the interests of employees. (How un-American!!
im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)
But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.
i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.
Then why is Canada doing alright?
I'm just baffled as to why someone who's supposedly so enlightened has nothing but personal attacks to support his opinion.
hmmm, why is Canada doing alright? in short, because they cut spending. Not cutting projected increases in spending, but making actual cuts. Entitlements WERE cut in Canada....something you all would be flippin a lid over if it happened here.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.
Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.
October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.
June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.
January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."
The article is headline news in Canada.
February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.
April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.
October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.
March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)
February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.
June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.
May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.
2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
what personal attack?
Fact: America is far and above that number right now.
Fact: The Constitution exists to restrict government, not individuals.
no i define freedom by universally set terms, as follows:
Liberty is
1.freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2.
freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3.
freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4.
freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint
it seems as though you are the one with beliefs based on a moving definition
Great post. I guess the point I'm making is IF done responsibly, countries can provide a large social safety net along with financial sanity.
Right now, the USA has neither.
i agree, but it doesnt need to involve mandating private companies provide specified services........ the topic of this thread.
bleeding hearts, socialism, use of emotion rather than facts to defend a position, not having real world experience, these are all standard responses from "conservatives" who claim to have more experience and be superior to and more intelligent than those of us on the left. i have been hearing that same shit on here from the conservative minority since before the onset of the iraq war. it is just pure, condescending bullshit. nothing more.
most of them claim to have studied the constitution and claim to know the intentions of the founding fathers. that is an outright bullshit claim as well. how can anyone know the actual intent of those that lived over 220 years ago? yes there are letters and books, but you can not apply everything written in that timeframe to today's world. besides, there are so many different ways that those things could be interpreted that nobody can know all of it with any degree of certainty...
so waveryder, are you saying that the liberals on here have no brain?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I love the part about reading the constitution and "studying" the founder's intent. What a joke. It's like those people who cling to a book written 2,000 years ago by a bunch of men espousing the "word of God."
and WHYGOHOME just admitted having no regard for the constitution. like it or not, that is the doctrine that is suppose to give our country some sort of direction. How can you disrespect something intended to protect YOUR rights as a human being?
Yup. That's exactly what I did.
the right to due process
free speech
the right to vote
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights
the right to bear arms
protection from unlawful search and seizure
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial
the right to a speedy and fair trial
the right to state provided attorney
protection from cruel and unusual punishment
What is it about these principles that is so outdated? Please fill me in. Please
so waveryder, are you saying that the liberals on here have no brain?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the right to due process unless you are hispanic, black, or of middle eastern descent, in which case the odds are stacked against you. just look at the demographics in our nation's prisons..and look at all of the gitmo detainees who were never charged with anything...just held for years with no charges, no trials, and no hearing in front of a military tribunal....
free speech to a certain extent. hate speech from the tea party and those on the right seems to be acceptable, and it is possible to run an entire political campaign paid for by superpacs who base the entire campaign on making up shit and attacking the other guy and not having to prove the accusations, so in that regard free speech is being abused. and do not get me started on citizen's united where corporations are people and money is speech
the right to vote unless you live in the south where mandatory picture ids are being required to vote and as such people are being disenfrancised
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president funnily enough congress is the most dysfunctional it has ever been. it is so divided. congress would rather let the economy collapse rather than see obama succeed at anything. some people call that good policy, when in actuality it is nothing more than being a dick.
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights people have the right to acquire property. when this was written PEOPLE were considered property...
the right to bear arms this is outdated. the intent of the founding fathers with this was to allow people to protect themselves from the brits, such as when british soldiers were quarterd in american homes, which is completely irrelevent in today's reality..
protection from unlawful search and seizure LOL patriot act anyone? there is no equal protection under the law and you can be unreasonably searched for anything at all these days.
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial coerced confessions anyone? this happens all the time. especially in cases of people who are in gitmo or were at other black site prisons...
the right to a speedy and fair trial people do get trials. most times they are not "speedy" (ie gitmo detainees) and most times, but not all times, they are fair.
the right to state provided attorney do people really want a public defender these days? if you want to get off or stay out of a long jail sentence you have to pay someone to get you off...
protection from cruel and unusual punishment death penalty is still legal, and we are still torturing people...
and that was just from the top of my head. if i really wanted to i could go through and find more examples. it does appear that this constitution has been shat upon. so how do ya suppose we clean up the mess??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
He expressed neither disregard nor disrespect for the Constitution. What he expressed disregard & disrespect for are the people who think they have some kind of inside scoop on how the founding fathers would apply it to present times.
Regardless, having just won Ed solo tickets through both 10C and the radio today, I'm in way too good a mood to continue with this discussion.
im glad you realize just how badly the Constitution is being trampled on.... see where my frustration comes from?
my suggestion is to start strictly adhereing to it. we've allowed our elected officials to compromise its principles for too long. The original topic of this thread is another example. So it seems we agree?
you missed one
The treasury charged with regulating currency: Since 1911 or 1913 (cant remember right off hand) our currency has been regulated by a central bank - THE FED - not the government. Just another breach of the Constitution.
the problem is everyone has accumulated more power since the constitution was ratified. the president has gained power given to gwb after 9/11. obama mentioned he was going to relinquish some of that power and he hasn't. nobody is going to give away power and weaken their position in government. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
and with the electorate the way it is, we have people still believing obama was born in kenya, so how does anyone think that this electorate if going to educate themselves on what the founders intended and what we have now and how to go about repairing it? unless glee becomes a civics lesson program and unless american idol would be for the presidency then this population will never have the attention span to grasp the things that you and ron paul are saying.
i don't know how we go about adhering to it now when it has become toilet paper for those in our government going back over 100 years. the ants are out of the anthill, and trying to fix things is like picking up all of the ants and putting them back in the anthill.
but as far as the thread topic, i am not buying the idea that an employer's freedom to decide what health care is provided is being trampled upon. to me, if you are going to provide something like health insurance, why half ass it? either they are in or they are out. we can't have employers sticking their toe in the water and pulling back. you are either in or you are out. and the other question is whose freedom is more important, the employer or the employee??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."